S v Collard

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Jajbhay J and Moshidi J
• Judgment Date: 10 March 2006
• Docket Number: Case No 983/2005
• Court: Witwatersrand Local Division
• Hearing Date: 10 March 2006
• Citation: 2007 (1) SACR 522 (W)

Moshidi J:

[1] This matter was originally placed before me on ordinary automatic review in terms of s 303 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (the Act). As the proceedings appeared to be in accordance with justice, I, at that stage, accordingly endorsed the certificate as such.

[2] However, the matter has now been placed before me on special E review in terms of s 304(4) of the Act which provides as follows:

'If in any criminal case in which a magistrate's court has imposed a sentence which is not subject to review in the ordinary course in terms of s 302 or in which a regional court has imposed any sentence, it is brought to the notice of the provincial or local division having jurisdiction or any judge thereof that the proceedings in which the sentence was imposed were not in accordance with F justice, such court or judge shall have the same powers in respect of such proceedings as if the record thereof had been laid before such court or judge in terms of s 303 or this section.'

[3] In casu, I have been requested by the magistrate to review the conditions only of the sentences imposed by him in the circumstances G which follow hereafter. The instant recommendations of the magistrate are also supported by the Senior Public Prosecutor at the Randburg magistrates' court, as will appear later.

[4] In this matter the accused faced three counts of theft under case No D1487/2004 in the Randburg magistrates' court (the first case). The H accused also faced two additional counts of fraud under case No 6/675/2005 in the same court (the second case). In both the cases, the complainant was the same employer of the accused. In the first case the value of the goods stolen by the accused from the complainant was about R137 763,27, while in the second case such value was the sum of I R18 000. When the accused appeared in the magistrates' court in the first case on 28 February 2005 he pleaded guilty to all three counts of theft. The accused was out on bail of R3 000 and legally represented. On the basis of the accused's written statement in terms of s 112(2) of the Act, the accused was found guilty as charged on 3 August 2005 and was sentenced to a fine of R60 000 or three years' imprisonment which was J

Moshidi J

wholly suspended for five years on certain conditions. One of such A conditions, which is the subject of this review, was that the accused repay to the complainant (his employer) in full the sum of R137 763,27 on or before 3 August 2010 (five years later) without failure. The accused offered R1 000 per month immediately to be increased to R3 000 per month after four months. The offer was not acceptable to the complainant. B In the second case the accused, under similar circumstances as the first case, pleaded guilty and was convicted as charged. The amount occasioned by the accused's fraudulent conduct was the sum of R18 000. On 3 August 2005 the accused was fined R18 000 or one month's imprisonment which was once more wholly suspended for a period of five years on certain conditions, including the condition that C the accused repay to the complainant the sum of R18 000 on or before 3 August 2010. The total amount of the repayment by the accused in favour of the complainant was therefore the amount of R155 763,27 on or...